許添明Sheu, Tian-Ming葉珍玲Yeh, Chen-Lin2019-08-282017-08-292019-08-282017http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22G0898000218%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/89697本研究從教育社會學及教育變革的角度，以參與成功專案之四個試辦學區19所國中小為研究對象，透過文件分析及質性訪談，分析成功專案籌備及實施第一年期間（103至104年）在四個試辦學區的運作情況，主要研究目的包括：（1）分析各區計畫書內容及計畫書規劃策略與困境；（2）探討四區之整合與領導類型及學區整合之困難與因應；（3）分析成功專案在學校及教室層級的推動策略及所遭遇的困難與挑戰；（4）探討學校整合社區資源及提升弱勢家長參與的挑戰與策略；（5）剖析成功專案在學區、學校及教室層級所造成的改變及促進學區與學校產生變革的因素。 主要研究發現：首先，在區計畫書規劃層面：（1）計畫書的經費配置取決於規劃者對基本學力的重視程度；（2）計畫書規劃策略深受學校行政教學分工及教育優先區計畫執行經驗之影響，惟部分學校能善用經費使用彈性調整補救教學之實施。其次，在學區之領導整合與學校層級之推動情形方面：（1）各區整合類型可分為聚焦學力型與凸顯特色型整合兩類，學區領導類型可分為校長主導及主任主導兩類；（2）特色課程與基本學力的競合不利於成功專案的推動，部分學校藉由調整補救教學運作有效提升學生基本學力；（3）共同命題與研習可望整合區內國小教師能量，實作或教練式之研習工作坊可激發教師改變教學方式；（4）缺乏行政權、共同討論時間及整合經驗是學區整合之挑戰。第三，在學校整合社區資源提升弱勢家長參與學生學習策略與挑戰方面：（1）部分學校未能慎選外部資源，以至占用學習時間；（2）多數學區改採積極的促進弱勢家長參與策略，惟透過教育家長提升學生基本學力所產生的力道仍顯薄弱。最後，成功專案促進區內學校交流、跨校合作與資源共享、部分學校亦修正補救教學與親子教育之實施方式，惟尚未顯見有教室層級之改變。聚焦提升基本學力、具備權能的核心領導團隊及行政人員與教師的對話機制是促進成功專案在學區層級及學校層級改變的關鍵因素。 本研究依據研究結果建議調整成功專案推動策略之順序，並提出四點成功專案實施策略之修正建議：（1）以提升學生基本學力為國中小整合主軸，發展行政人員課程領導能力；（2）建立區內及校內行政人員與教師對話討論機制，提供討論的鷹架與伴隨；（3）引進具備相同偏鄉教學經驗教師，搭配與現場教學工作銜接的、持續進行的，且專注於課程與教學的培訓課程，提升教師分析學生學習成效及差異化教學知能；（4）促進跨部會合作，擴大政府社福部門之參與介入，協助學校改善家庭失能之社會結構性因素，以提升專案的綜效。Taiwan has launched the Education Priority Area (EPA) program in order to reduce the regional and socio-economic effects on the learning outcome of disadvantaged students since 1996. Yet research has shown that the widening academic achievement gaps persist between Taiwanese disadvantaged students and their well-off counterparts. There is a growing imperative of the adjustment of EPA program to ensure equitable education and to close the achievement gap. This study aims to investigate the implementation process of an experimental EPA Program in Taiwan. This study use content analysis and semi-structured interviews with school principals, adminitrators and teachers to analyze challenges, difficulties and compromises during the implementation process. Results: (1) The allocation of budget depended on schools' perceived importance of basic competence. (2) The planning strategies of zone proposal were dominated by the logic of division of labor and formal education priority area program implementation experiences, however, some schools managed the budget flexibility to adjust the implementation of remedial program. (3) Two types of zone integration have formed: competence-centered and featured-curriculum-centered. (4) The coopetition between different education goals was unfavorable to the implementation of the EPA experimental Program. (5) Teacher teamwork within the zone and school-based workshops facilitated the educational change from bottom-up. (6) Lacking of administrative authority and executive power, short of discussion time and insufficient collaboration skills were three main challenges of zone integration. (7) Some schools failed to manage the external educational resources, and some extracurricular activities even took up student learning time. (8) The majority of zones deployed active parental involvement strategies, but the effect of parental involvement on students' learning outcomes was still tiny. Policy recommendations: (1) the revision of the implementation strategies of the experimental EPA program is proposed. (2) Fostering the development of curriculum leaders and concentrating the focus of zone integration on basic competence. (3) Establishing the mechanism of discussion between school administrators and teachers and providing resources to scaffold collaborative discussions. (4) Introducing experienced rural teachers and school-based workshop to strengthen instruction and empower teachers. (5) Successful educational change and good educational performance require improvements in social welfare and economic sectors, it is therefore essential that public sectors support each other to create social capital and mutual trust in order to increase the efficiency of education system.教育優先區教育變革弱勢者教育education priority areaeducational changeeducation for disadvantaged groups